How did the myth of Jesus' resurrection originate?

[Minimalist]

Aren't Daniel and Revelation apocalypse novels,

The themes from the Greek class of novel were usually quite sappy...two young lovers face trials and tribulations before finally attaining happiness. Think Harlequin Romances!

Those two are classified as apocalyptic literature....basically, "you may throw sand in my face but just you wait until my big brother gets here." Fitting for the mind of idiots who believe in all-powerful invisible sky-daddies but reality is always different.

I'm convinced that Revelations started out as Jewish wishful-thinking about the Great Revolt and Daniel was finished in 167 BC since all the things it "predicts" before that date happened and all the things it "predicts" afterwards did not. Again, it is enough to impress gullible morons.

Esther I have never read so can't comment.

[Medi]

quote='rightcoaster' pid='563260' dateline='1387050437']

I tried to reply yesterday, but the post shows no text. Maybe this will work better. I apologize for any duplication, it's unintended:

To Medi: Your assessment seems very good. A big concern of the Jews is that a living person would be interred, given that the obligation is to bury quickly. That's why there are "shomrim" in Judaism, who watch over the body to make sure it is really dead.

Now, as to whether Jesus was actually dead when removed (some here argue nothing at all of this happened, but that does not lead to any discussion, and what is life without a good argument?), he was also scourged beforehand. As I understand that process, the person is pretty well flayed open. Seems to me one could lose a lot of blood if an artery were nicked in the process, maybe bleed to death in well under six hours.

---

Was one of these 'shomrim' present with Jesus?

It's just that I would imagine, considering the hatred of many of the Jews toward Jesus, that he probably wouldn't have been afforded such a right (perhaps?). Maybe that's why Mary was there?

There's also the question of myrrh and frankinsence at the tomb. These are used in Asia to treat wounds, so perhaps the women came with the intent of trying to heal Jesus?

Concerning his time in Kashmir and India, the Bhavishvya Mahaj Purani, sanskrit writings, hold eye-witness accounts of the king Raja Shalvan coming across a man who called himself 'Yussasaf' who said, when asked for his religion, 'love is the name of my faith', and went on to describe how he'd been tortured in Israel and miraculously survived. That would explain how he came to some of the prophets with holes in his hands and then says 'I'm going to my master', the same 'master' whose business he'd been about during his twenties.

There's a prophecy that was torn from the Pali writings of Buddha that talks about Jesus in a story, after Buddha's disciple Ananda asks him 'how can we be rid of our desire for misdeeds (sin) for good?' and the Buddha replies something like 'it would take you to rub that wooden post three times a day until it is dust to be rid of your desire for misdeeds', and continues to prophecy someone who'll come after him to remove sin from the world.

Loads of the existing writings prophecy 'metteya' (pronounced meth-ayia), who'll come to teach kindness to the world.

The parables of the sewing of seeds, Jesus teachings on 'love others as yourself' and a whole host of other points, they're written almost identically in buddhist texts that were made hundreds of years before Jesus' birth.

Only two full tribes of Israel lived in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' life, and the rest had emigrated east. It's probably not a coincidence that Thomas went east too, towards India.

In Herath, there is a group of muslims who refer to Jesus as 'Yusassaf the Kashmiri'.

There's also a large Buddhist following in Kasmir and Southern Nepal that talk of a man called 'Issa' who fits Jesus description.

There's evidence out there to be found, but how much biblical writing and narrative of Jesus lies either in the Vatican vaults or has been burned throughout the ages? Between crusades and popes that think torture and witch-burning are viable actions to be taken from Jesus' teachings, I can't really agree that those kinds of people were ever qualified to choose what is viable as biblical writing and what isn't.

Personally, from reading Theravadas, I don't think there's any doubt Jesus took after Buddha. And I'm stumped if I have to accept that a man died, came back to life and then disappeared into metaphysical bliss when the alternative makes a lot more sense.

[rightcoaster]

quote='rightcoaster' pid='563260' dateline='1387050437']

---

Was one of these 'shomrim' present with Jesus?

It's just that I would imagine, considering the hatred of many of the Jews toward Jesus, that he probably wouldn't have been afforded such a right (perhaps?). Maybe that's why Mary was there?

RC: I dunno, nobody can know. And I don't know whether corpse-watching-over was universally done then or ever. Jesus was an executed criminal, it was a holy day, help was scarce or on vacation, so maybe there was a shomer, but maybe/probably not. If anyone was there to watch over the corpse, why did he/she wait to show up until Sunday morning if the body was entombed late Friday afternoon? If a shomer was required/provided/showed up, there could not have been a seal (an implausible story element anyway).

As for the rest of your post, all I can say is "ommmm".

[Ksa]

RC: I dunno, nobody can know. And I don't know whether corpse-watching-over was universally done then or ever. Jesus was an executed criminal, it was a holy day, help was scarce or on vacation, so maybe there was a shomer, but maybe/probably not. If anyone was there to watch over the corpse, why did he/she wait to show up until Sunday morning if the body was entombed late Friday afternoon? If a shomer was required/provided/showed up, there could not have been a seal (an implausible story element anyway).

You know 2,000 years after, what can we do to prove such things...but what about in the year 600? If we could roll back time by 1,400 years, it would definitely give a more accurate picture. In my opinion, the best clue that something is VERY wrong with the resurrection is found in the Qur'an, in Surat An-Nisā'4, Verses 157-158 which says:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."

Put yourself in the shoes of the Muslims who wrote the Qur'an. To make such a strong, definitive and precise affirmation in a book that was meant to last forever, it means that even in the year 600 there was fuckall clues about any of that. I assume the brilliant Muslim scholars who reunited to write the book (before handing it over to Muhammad so he could claim he was illiterate and got it from God), had examined every piece of evidence, every sculpture, every inch of tomb/relics and found NO EVIDENCE of anything or they would NEVER have taken the risk of writing such a thing. Never ever.

Furthermore, the ascension was thrown out of the King James version of the Bible as a fabrication. By whom? Not by Atheists, Muslims or Jews, but by 32 Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed up by 50 cooperative denominations, they found it was a fabrication and they threw it out of the (RSV) revised standard version of the Bible. It is nowhere found in the original manuscript.

But if the ascension was an interpolation, and the Muslims of the year 600 are saying none of that happened. It's puzzling really. It's hard for someone to die on a cross in a few hours and we know Jesus was not critically injured or he would have never been able to carry out his cross. It says it wasn't even Jesus...which could work with his statement "Ellay ellay lamassa bahtani" Oh God oh God why has though forsaken ME? Why ME? I've done nothing. It was someone else that should have been here. He never said FAATHER. ABBA. He says my God. We know Jesus adressed god as FAATHER. So he changed idea there.

[Minimalist]

[Ksa]

^ Yep and maybe they knew and even had proof of the substitution theory and then destroyed it. The reason why Surat An-Nisā'4:157-158 is so disturbing is because usually, the Qur'an uses very ambiguous words and phrase structures that can mean anything when making claims lol. But Surat An-Nisā'4:157-158 is very precise, in fact I would go as far as saying it's THE most precise statement in the Qur'an. I don't think they would have written it in such precise language with no CERTAIN knowledge. In my opinion, they knew the truth and when you know the truth, no one can prove you wrong. They somehow had access to Roman documents or such that revealed everything.

[Minimalist]

They somehow had access to Roman documents or such that revealed everything.

It was called the Byzantine Empire by that time.

Again, Robert Spencer has archaeological evidence of crosses on allegedly early muslim coins. His book, Did Muhammed Exist, is well worth reading.

[xpastor]

[Ksa]

^ I don't know I'm just thinking ^>^

Since the Qur'an is so ambiguous about everything else except the resurrection, maybe it was common knowledge back then that it was all made up lol.

[Aractus]